Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

Is not your privacy also your property?

I don't think that peeking in your letters is at the same level as throwing a stone through your window...

Both are violations. Privacy is valuable because we value privacy, no other reason is needed, but you could do a lot of horrible things to a person if you could just look through their mail without restriction. It's always been a federal crime to do so, and changing that is one giant leap towards a dictatorship, pretty clearly. Wiretapping and intercepting electronic communications (functionally becoming the same thing) has been illegal for the exact same reason, and it's difficult to argue that they're any different - both can provide sensitive information, both can be used to oppress, and both have that 'ick' factor that makes most people that think about it long enough pretty pissed off.

Sliding slope arguments are easy to construct but hard to verify, especially considering that the Netherlands already taps like 5% (if it's not more) of it's population, and you can hardly call it a dictatorship. (well, technicaly you can, since the population is obviously being terrorized by a small group of people who're above the law, but arguing about that is going to turn this into a social flame war if I'm not banned before that for suggestive language. That however doesn't have anything to do with phone taps or the government.)


While it's true that it's possible to cause someone a lot of harm with personal information, it's also possible for doctors to cause a lot of harm by leaking personal information, yet I don't see many of you arguing that we should curb the rights of doctors to collect information. Instead, in their case, people seem to assume that since doctors (and medical specialists who might never even see the person in question, in case you'd want to use that as an argument) practically have to swear an oath not to abuse their knowledge (and they get in a lot of trouble if they break it), they're not going to do it. Same for social workers. What makes wire-tappers different in this respect?

Difference of views I guess. It's just that I can't really see how privacy would be valued over the protection of life and property.

Not really, just scale : let's be serious for one second : how many horrible death are caused by serial killers per years in the US? How many people die everyday from car crash? And so on...
You can't  destroy all privacy to stop the serials killers (or rather, you CAN do that, but under very serious scrutiny) I don't see why you gobble the excuse that a few lone terrorist (because we're not speaking about al Quaida there, they are clever enough to encrypt their communications, which is easy as pie by the way) warrant the wiretapping of the whole nation.
If you want to save peoples, you have better things to do.

I'd think organized crime is one of the most important causes of intentional bodily harm and death, especially in large cities where significant parts of the city are essentially owned by mobs or gangs. (to give an example, near the end of last year, a dutch mayor had to go in hiding to avoid being murdered by the local mafia. This being Holland, I can hardly imagine the situation in the US is much better.) Phone taps have been and still are one of the most important tools in the fight against organized crime but I feel the current system is just not suited to fight crime on a scale we're seeing, especially with the drug wars going worldwide. I could hardly care less about terrorists, but I don't think it's a good idea to sit idly under the guise of privacy while the government is slowly being replaced by people who have no qualms about tapping people's heads instead of their phones.

[Phmcw]

I'd think organized crime is one of the most important causes of intentional bodily harm and death, especially in large cities where significant parts of the city are essentially owned by mobs or gangs. (to give an example, near the end of last year, a dutch mayor had to go in hiding to avoid being murdered by the local mafia. This being Holland, I can hardly imagine the situation in the US is much better.) Phone taps have been and still are one of the most important tools in the fight against organized crime but I feel the current system is just not suited to fight crime on a scale we're seeing, especially with the drug wars going worldwide. I could hardly care less about terrorists, but I don't think it's a good idea to sit idly under the guise of privacy while the government is slowly being replaced by people who have no qualms about tapping people's heads instead of their phones.

Hmmm... yes, but make no mistakes : such people routinely infiltrate governments in the world, and the law that give any privacy depriving action the obligation to be justified is the main thing keeping them in check.

[Virex]

Would someone who has the guts to infiltrate the FBI or the NSA be restrained by privacy laws? One of the problems which makes a criminal investigation currently so difficult is that there are all kinds of laws preventing the police from fighting criminals on similar terms. For example, the police needs a warrant to search a house, the mafia just needs a gun. Now, I'm not saying we should let go of all laws surrounding criminal investigations, but I think it's about time we seriously reconsider the way we currently fight crime before reality makes us.

[Eagleon]

Would someone who has the guts to infiltrate the FBI or the NSA be restrained by privacy laws?

No, but some measure of internal accountability makes it a lot easier for other FBI/NSA agents to pick them out from the crowd. If you have everyone digging through chat logs looking for bombers, it's a lot harder to notice the person digging through chat logs (who probably knows exactly the right chat logs to look for, mind you) and 'clearing' the bombers as fine young citizens having a chuckle about the silly NSA agents monitoring their conversation.

Sliding slope arguments are easy to construct but hard to verify, especially considering that the Netherlands already taps like 5% (if it's not more) of it's population, and you can hardly call it a dictatorship. (well, technicaly you can, since the population is obviously being terrorized by a small group of people who're above the law, but arguing about that is going to turn this into a social flame war if I'm not banned before that for suggestive language. That however doesn't have anything to do with phone taps or the government.)

You don't need to verify it. If the power is available, it will be used, and abused. Contrary to some views, ruthless people are no stupider than normal people. They'll use the tools available to them. It doesn't make sense to give out more toys to law enforcement when the result isn't any safer. It's an arms race with no lag available to one-up the "bad guys" - in this case, the bad guys are any tool that can manage to throw enough flowers and pet enough babies to get elected.

Dictatorships can and do happen. Ignore this at your own peril, that's all I'll say.

While it's true that it's possible to cause someone a lot of harm with personal information, it's also possible for doctors to cause a lot of harm by leaking personal information, yet I don't see many of you arguing that we should curb the rights of doctors to collect information. Instead, in their case, people seem to assume that since doctors (and medical specialists who might never even see the person in question, in case you'd want to use that as an argument) practically have to swear an oath not to abuse their knowledge (and they get in a lot of trouble if they break it), they're not going to do it. Same for social workers. What makes wire-tappers different in this respect?

The difference is informed consent. People know the personal information is being collected, people trust the doctors to use it to help them, and they volunteer the information willingly by talking to them and going to them when they're sick. Whereas right now you and I could be parsed through software to decide if what we've submitted is seditious, and the agent at the end of the line gets to poke through it if it does, whether you like it or not. Yeah, not any worse than cancer screening, right?

[Phmcw]

Would someone who has the guts to infiltrate the FBI or the NSA be restrained by privacy laws?

You don't need to actually infiltrate the FBI when you can simply get elected. I'll just say one name : Berlusconi.

Now, I'm not saying we should let go of all laws surrounding criminal investigations, but I think it's about time we seriously reconsider the way we currently fight crime before reality makes us.

Duh, the warrant can be delivered swiftly, if need be. The problem to stop mafiosi are more on the side of political protection than anything else.
If we want to find criminals let's take a look into the governments and the financing of the political parties.
The European citizen, no matter the political orientation, should unite to take a look into their respective political apparatus, ask for a serious inquiry, and throw at least half their politicians in prison.

[Duke 2.0]

I think the principle at work here is the same as, "Don't be a dick to soldiers for being soldiers, because chances are the motivation for signing on was to serve their loved ones, not to stomp all over some other culture," or "Don't be a dick to telemarketers for being telemarketers, because they probably took the only job for which they were qualified and likely to be hired, and are as a consequence stuck in a job that's as exploitative of employees as of customers". Somewhere in between those two, really, since it seems to have elements of both, but to not be as extreme as either.

But not "The government is infallible and you should be ashamed of yourselves for ever questioning it." That is silly.

 Thank you, guy who understands.

 Not to mention that harassing the agents employees doing these things means nothing, much like prosecuting a soldier ordered to take down a questionable target. The guy who is in charge will continue to do what they do because it's the guy under him that is on the front lines. They take all the heat from people who don't like what is going on where the managers and executives/politicians who decide these things never feel it.

 And a bit of me sees it as more pf a personal feel-good thing than a real attempt to change things. You feel good and heroic about badmouthing the face of the authority who wants to subvert your liberties, the effects of which are simply overworking one dude that wasn't responsible for making these decisions and won't effect the guys who did in any meaningful way. Or one could go through all the effort and personal sacrifice to make a rally calling out the politicians who decided on this and put their position at risk. Personal liberties doesn't seem to be as big a factor as general laziness at the expense of others.

[Aqizzar]

Not to mention that harassing the agents employees doing these things means nothing, much like prosecuting a soldier ordered to take down a questionable target. The guy who is in charge will continue to do what they do because it's the guy under him that is on the front lines. They take all the heat from people who don't like what is going on where the managers and executives/politicians who decide these things never feel it.

It's not quite the same dynamic as signing up for military service.  You can only get into a position to be on the receiving end of intelligence analysis by wanting to be involved, and you can be fired or quit at any time like a normal job (since it is).  Meaning anyone who's in such a position is there because they want to be, or at least don't have a problem with the activities in question.  There's no question of the morality of "just following orders" with intelligence agencies, because you can refuse an order at any time with no consequence worse than losing the job.

I don't think Google-bombing key terms accomplishes anything, but if working for these agencies is itself unattractive enough, you can call that a victory.  If there's one thing the absolute explosion of the intelligence community indicates though, it's that "results" really aren't a metric, nowhere near as much as perception, which is exactly why from day 1 the answer to lacking useful intelligence has always been "throw more money at it", which is why fucking up the process won't do anything but make it bloat more.

[Zangi]

When you consider it... there is a double standard. 
'Our' soldiers and gov't people should follow orders and ignore morality. vs 'The Enemy' soldiers and gov't people are liable for following orders and ignoring morality.

Did I get that right?

[RedKing]

Not to mention that harassing the agents employees doing these things means nothing, much like prosecuting a soldier ordered to take down a questionable target. The guy who is in charge will continue to do what they do because it's the guy under him that is on the front lines. They take all the heat from people who don't like what is going on where the managers and executives/politicians who decide these things never feel it.

It's not quite the same dynamic as signing up for military service.  You can only get into a position to be on the receiving end of intelligence analysis by wanting to be involved, and you can be fired or quit at any time like a normal job (since it is).  Meaning anyone who's in such a position is there because they want to be, or at least don't have a problem with the activities in question.  There's no question of the morality of "just following orders" with intelligence agencies, because you can refuse an order at any time with no consequence worse than losing the job.

Other than, you know, having your clearance revoked and being blackballed so that you can't find another job in your field ever again. No biggie.

[Duuvian]

We were talking about the wikileaks thing

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

RE: I agree with what you read most likely
Sent By:   You
Received By:   KillianBlack [ARR]
Date:   6/1/2011 8:28:37 AM

Also, by the way, I bet in the report it said that the agencies are only notified if it's a foreigner trying to deposit the check. This is true and happened once when my buddy was working. He said it was legit and the guy sent it to some overseas  Bank Account when it cleared.

 

However, he also said that's only when they are notified. , They still have to send it through some kind of integrated system that keeps track of everything and the intelligence agencies get a copy. Since they control the flow of information to the government and thus largely, to the people there is a very good reason to bribe them through whatever manner convenient now that they have info on everything pretty much. Basically I think they are so intertwined that they work in the gov to build credentials then work at a corp to use what they manipulated by controlling the markets for weapons into their new war zone. In this case it happened to be Mexico. I'm sure not all of them are bad, I just hope the good ones outnumber the bad ones or else my potential grandchildren will be fucked somehow.

 

After you read my post and spend a couple of hours reading (it's like a history book no one has released yet) then read this post again and I hope you'll see what I was getting at.

 

Also Capone has nothing to do with it; he leaned evil while the guys doing this are neutral. Starting wars to take advantage of it still isn't right though. I've always argued there were three wars, one in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Mexico. Mexico was probably the most profitable of all as the distribution point for the oil, drugs, and weapons that would be flowing from the other two. In addition, the South American wars were always really profitable because they were easy to fight by proxy by supplying both sides. It happens like every decade it seems like. It's a reason why the part of government not By-The-People needs to be examined.
 

> RE: I agree with what you read most likely
> Received: 01 Jun 2011 08:02
> Original Message:

I actually agree with some parts of the Patriot act, the problem is that mixed in are very fishy things that the average person does not know about. One of my friends works at a banking section at a local Meijers and he told me that any deposit over $9,000 is automatically tracked by the government and specifically intelligence agencies due to a clause in the Patriot act that pertains to tracking large 'suspicious' deposits of cash as it somehow could be linked to terrorist organizations. That's an example.

 

Did you at least read my post and look into those links that are in it? To be honest i didn't read much of the rest of the thread. In my post there is an explanation of how the US government Intelligence agencies are likely fueling what amounts to a civil war in Mexico by selling weapons to both sides. The private sector and the government sector in intelligence are intertwined somewhere.